[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTim=VMoC+wG6Hikzic95Avooi=-9Fu=mjSCxNXEZ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 13:26:21 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] CRED: Fix __task_cred()'s lockdep check and banner
comment
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
>
> I think it is totally reasonable to add a per pid lock,
> that would protect the pid->task[...] hlist. That would make
> things clearer and finer grained without a lot of effort. Just
> a little more struct pid bloat, and a little extra care in fork,
> when we add to those lists.
Hmm. Have you taken a look at Nick Piggin's VFS scalability patches?
They introduce this "RCU-safe hash chain lock", where each hashchain
has a lock-bit in the low bit. I wonder if that would be the right
thing to use?
> Even with the per-pgrp lock we still need a lock on the global process
> list for the kill -KILL -1 case. Which suggests that tasklist_lock is
> still needed for part of kill_something_info.
Well, that -1 case is special anyway. The fact that we might want to
use the tasklist_lock there is not very relevant, I think. That is
_not_ a hotpath, really (at least not under any relevant loads, I'm
sure you could make a silly benchmark of "kill(-1,0)").
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists